The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-07-30

an opportunity to change them except Maftler
and he did not / doubt if is is in your power to
invent reason that will allow Coy and Matter
to escape.
There ara two of these papers that were man.
ifestly scratched by Perkins, as he says, with
the knowledge and appreciation OF Coy and OF
Mattler There were five other papers scratched
IN precisely the same way. Who scratched
themf Did Perkins gather Schmidts papersE
Who them to Perkinsa Where was
Schmidt when Perkins got them2 They are
scratched-acids used upon them. Did
Perkins at night steal those papers out of
Schmidts safeg Did Perkins go into
the courthouse attic cellar or
into auy other room than Room 90
and change those papers2 IL their theory is
true that Perkins did all this and that nobody
else had anything else to do with it, you have
got reach the conclusion that somehow or
other Perkins got hold of every one of those pa
pers and did the scratching without the knowi-
edge consent or appreciation of anybody elsea
He could not and did not get possession OF
Schmidts papers. The manner in which they
went out of Schmidts possession will point out
further along
1--WE come to the papers of the Seventeenth
ward. The first precinct there scratched were
the only papers turned over by oehier to Coy,
and by Corbaly taken to his room
and thrown upon the table. Did Fer
kins sneek there and carry them out
and scratch thema l put the same question
with reference TO the Eighteenth wardt With
reference to the Belmont district And Coun-
selman's papers2 The whole seven of them. Is
it true, as Mr.. McNuts asserts that Perkins got
hold of and scratched all of these papersl There
was too much scratching for one man. Perkins
had help to do it. Coy helped him. Mattler
helped him as you know, certainly. / submit
the question: who helped to scratch the othersg
In order to establish this / must call your at
tenton to the testimony of Perkins You have
heard the phrase 'Iscariot" and have heard
good deal of labored rhetoric on that subject.
J. think such of the Scriptures as given in
that connection is saerilege, prostituting things
that ought to be held sacred. | am not
here the defender of Perkins's character. He is
"A mink of perfecrlOn. HIS skirts not
clean. He has befouled himself to some extent
-befouled by his connection with Simeon Coy.
He is not, however, a man of the general bad
moral character they give him. If ne had been
they had right to prove it and they did not
undertake It. It was told TO you that Perkins
was an avar;cous man and a man who would
steal, lie and do everything. do not under
stand that is the meaning OF avaricious.. have
known avaricious men who were honest Do
not understand me as. defending the char
acter of Perkins l am not going
to take Perkins to my bosom.
loved his father and am sorry the son ever be-
came so prosttuted. He stands before you
he is. He did wrong and he has repented OF it.
He has made a confession of wrong and the very
first step toward reformation is repentance |
believe that is good orthodox religion: you can
not reform until you have repented OF your evil
Whether it be that Perkins has repented or not
do not know and do not care Yes. do care.
1t may be, however, that he has not repented; it
may be that in this matter he was prompted en-
tirely by desire to screen himself II
that be true, it is a circumstance for
you to consider in determining the weight OF this
evidence. III he be bad man, you are to con-
slider that IN determining the weight of the evil
dence. he has been denounced most bitterly
All the low, vile epithets that the ingenuity of
the mind could command have been hurled at
Perkins. As matter of course they have got
to break Perkins down. and they hoped that
would stand before you and defend hum. But
am not going to do it. He is bad enough. He
was one of the Coy flock that raped the ballot
box and committed the outrage against you, and
you. and everybody, care not what your poll
tics are Coy led him into it, and Coy led these
other young men into It. And he will
not escape punishment. simply by the de-
nouncing of Perkins by the counsel. There is
Perkins; take him and look at him. They have
said TO you that he is confessed villain. and
tn at he is a confessed perJurer. That latter is
not true. He is not confessed periurer. even
if he has confessed that he Is party TO this
crime aud so far that impairs his testimony.
it is your right aad duty to consider It. But IS
it true that the law is to permit him to testify,
and that you are not tc pay any regard to his
testimony Why is he brought in courta Why
is he put upon the witness stands Simply to
tell tale that you are entirely to disregard
from the heginnng-treat il as if it were not IN
the case2 The history of criminal jurispru-
dence proves that the very worst cases of crime
that have been brought to light snd punished
have been by just such means as the use of such
men Samuel Perkins. who were in the crime
and turned States evidence. You will not
vict even Coy Mattler,-I will not ask you to .
convict any man, any one of these defendants.
upon the testimony of Perkins alone. But ]
will ask you to convict them upon the testimony
of Perkins, where corroborated by other wit
nesses. and that is what prepose to show YOU
whether he has been corroborated
Before / take up that subject / want to
speak of one thing that shocked my sense of
decency. / siude to the agreement made be-
tween James Mitchell and Captain Ritter upon
one side and Perkins upon the other The gem
tlsmen have said to you that James Mitchell,
the Democratic prosecuting attorney-I mention
it because it is in evidence-was guilty of foul
deed IN com pounding a felony when he entered
into this agreement with Perkins. They said
that Jim Mitchell was a standing disgrace, and
they have said that Captain Ritter was stand
ing disgrace in the eyes OF this community.
They have said that Judge Irwin is tisgraced
because he gave his sanction to that agreement.
You recollect the language used about this
agreement. / will not repeat it, because [
have not the power of the language to
do it and express it coarsely the gen.
tlemen expressed it. Baker, Hord & Hendricks
impression that two OF that firm represented by
that name, Gov. Baker and the Hon. Thomas
A Hendricks were dead. and not in it any more.
That was true, but two Of that firm now,
just what they have been for twenty years.
Oscar B. Hord and A. w. Hendricks. The
Baker, why, be is the son of the distinguished
Brown says that that act ought to disgrace that
firm always. that that act will 60 with them
through ali their lives. / want to give the gen
tlemen the benefit of ,his-coy and
ballot box deseeraters. They not only going
to pull down my distinguished friend here. Mr..
Sellers, Democrat, In discharge OF his Official
duty, but in addition to that James MITCHELL
wish you knew him, | wish he could come and
stand before you and you know his char acter.
| wish that Captain Rtters character was
known to you by Republicans and Democrats.
wish Judge Irwin s character was known TO you
by Repu blicans and Democrats. L wish you
knew Albert Baker You know Mr.. Hord and
A. w. Hendricks. Gentlemen, / say to you,
you may take Sim Coy to your bosom If he is
your choice as between these men, take him aud
cherish him fit subject to represent society
and be eXtolied before jury and the people
who are here present; take him, love him. take
him to your bosom as much as you please. but
when it comes me 1 take James Mitchell. I
take Captain Ritter. ] take Judge Irwin
and / take Baker, Hord & Hendricks.
Ii you want to be seen arm-in-arm with Coy
upon the streets of Indianapolis you can do it.
Jason Brown, Mr.. Bynum and Mr.. McNutt,
march out of this room il you please in the
presence of these people arm-in with Dir.
Coy if you want TO. He is the man whose praises
you sing here in this court. Take him to your
homes If You want to, introduce him to your
family upou the streets If you want fTauri-